Hi CT,My understanding of Roman history - and I studied it at...

Hi CT,

My understanding of Roman history - and I studied it at uni (not that that means much) is that their coins were debased which meant that their soldiers were being paid less (in real terms), which caused all sorts of problems. So it was reserve currency debasement that caused a weak army and not the other way around. Would you stay as a soldier if your pay was effectively being cut through debasing the coinage that you were paid in? Or would you follow some new leader that promised something else.

Check out the number of emperors Rome had before Diocletian. Every week there was a new leader, because pretty much the old leader was being killed by someone in the army because the soldiers could not live off their wages anymore (again because the coinage was being debased - and people realised this).

Talk of 50 years not being very long, and then the CCP will be gone in two. That don't stack up.

A fully fledgved war between the US and China will last two weeks. Hmmmm, China must not be as strong as Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or North Korea. Come on, the USA is not even an empire proper. It is just the British one moved.

It is like the Byzantine Empire. It wasn't anything new, it was just the continuance of the decaying Roman Empire. The US is just the continuance of the decayed British Empire. It's just that we're too close to see.

But even if you wanted to treat it as an Empire proper, then yes there are plenty of very short lived Empires throughout history.

Overstrecth isn't only applicable to nations, it is probably just as suitable to individuals who tey to overstretch their own ken.